Assume Bad Faith

“Assume Good Faith” is a core principle on Wikipedia. But, it is also the core principle of caste-class elite inner circles, rape apologists, and other toxic individuals. In this post I will describe this apparent contradiction and how we need to assume bad faith when it comes to politics.

WP:AGF

Editing Wikipedia can sometimes become a political battle. Especially when there are disagreements which stem from larger political differences. In these situations, Wikipedia editors try to arrive at a consensus through reasoned debates. There are several principles which guide them during these debates.

WP:AGF is one among them. It is summarized as:

Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

Why WP:AGF works

Assume good faith works in two ways.

1: It helps editors humanize other editors and give them space to be imperfect. WP:AGF helps people overcome their impulse to characterize opponents as malicious and allows them to listen to each other.

2: WP:AGF creates a framework for coming together in the long term despite disagreements. It allows people to lose an argument and still feel like there is consensus.

It is the second mechanism which breaks down when people try to apply AGF elsewhere.

Where AGF is never encouraged

Think about the “not all men” argument. At its core what it says is the same: “assume good faith, not all men are monsters”. The feminist answer to this is that in a world where men are constantly acting in bad faith, there is a constant price being paid in assuming good faith and being wrong, and therefore it must be on the men to prove they are not problematic. Assuming bad faith from men seems to be the practical way forward in feminist politics.

A similar situation arises in anti-caste movement where people are forced to assume bad faith actions from privileged caste folks (even when they speak “progressive” language). People from privileged caste backgrounds repeatedly fail to demonstrate their anti-caste “intentions” when it comes to things that actually matter.

WP:AGF vs AGF in general

In editing wikipedia:

• There’s a stated common goal of building an online encyclopedia.
• There are mechanisms to ensure that everyone works towards that goal and stopping bad actors is a shared responsibility. There are external mechanisms to ensure justice.

In such an environment, AGF is easy to practice and often useful too.

But in politics,

• Different people have different goals (often hidden goals).
• There are no reliable “external” mechanisms to deliver justice, the debate is often tied to the justice mechanisms itself.

In such an environment AGF is not merely harmful; it is even unclear what the shared commitment is towards which the assumption of good faith is being made.

What should happen instead?

In politics, there should be no compulsion to assume good faith. Rather, people should freely assume bad faith. And it must be on everyone to demonstrate what they stand for through loud and clear actions.

Look at what Suraj Yengde wrote in Caste Matters:

There were radical anti-caste Phuleite and Ambedkarite Brahmins who laid their lives in the service of the upliftment of Dalits and in the project of the annihilation of caste. I uncover these figures in Chapter 6 by analysing what prevents contemporary Brahmins, the progeny of Ambedkarite Brahmins, from taking an active stand against caste-based discrimination. Many liberal Brahmins and ‘upper castes’ do express their disagreement with casteism but their disapproval of such a system does not change the situation of Dalits. This has to do with passive liberalism rather than the radical humanist position of being a ‘cultural suicide bomber’ willing to blow up the oldest surviving edifice of discrimination.

A radical humanist position will be unambiguous. Such a position will be clear to everyone, and there won’t be the need for “assuming” anything anymore.

Post-script

This post has been going on in my mind for a long time. The caste-class elite in India living a fake life of “progressiveness” and even “radicalism” on social media and not even bothering to think about whether there’s any change in material reality. I have people whom I extend AGF to in those circles, and one of them, a Wikipedian I first came into touch through Wikipedia, has actually used the Wikipedia policy to talk me out of assuming bad faith from some actors.

Recent events in Wikimedia Foundation’s anti-union tactics and gaslighting about it has prompted me to finally get this down in words. It is no coincidence that 11 years ago Jimmy Wales’ self-serving politics itself prompted me to reconsider my irrational trust in other people’s virtues.